DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/21/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. No copy of the cited NPL document has been provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 20 each recite the limitation “vegetables such as rice hull or straw.” The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-21, and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baker (US 5,416,056).
Regarding claim 1, Baker teaches the preparation of an activated carbon from lignocellulosic materials (column 3, lines 5-10). The activated carbon is acid and heat treated (column 3, lines 1-10). It is the position of the examiner that the acid treatment/heat treatment would result in the effect claimed. i.e. reduced impurity level compared to untreated activated carbon.
Regarding claims 2-4, Baker specifically teaches the reduction in the amount of phosphate to 0.01%, which would result in an amount of phosphorus below 800 ppm (column 7, lines 55-62).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Baker teaches that the carbon is highly microporous and has greater than 80% of the total pore volume in micropores (column 4, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 7-8, Baker teaches that the carbon has a BET surface area of 1700 m2/g (Table 1).
Regarding claim 9, Baker teaches activation with phosphoric acid (column 3, lines 1-10).
Regarding claims 10-11, Baker teaches the lignocellulosic carbon may be sawdust (column 3, lines 43-45 and column 4, lines 28-30).
Regarding claim 13-15, Baker teaches the preparation of an activated carbon from lignocellulosic materials (column 3, lines 5-10). The activated carbon is acid and heat treated (column 3, lines 1-10). Baker specifically teaches the reduction in the amount of phosphate to 0.01%, which would result in an amount of phosphorus below 800 ppm (column 7, lines 55-62).
Regarding claims 16 and 23, Baker teaches that the carbon is highly microporous and has greater than 80% of the total pore volume in micropores (column 4, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 17-18, Baker teaches that the carbon has a BET surface area of 1700 m2/g (Table 1).
Regarding claim 19, Baker teaches activation with phosphoric acid (column 3, lines 1-10).
Regarding claims 20-21, Baker teaches the lignocellulosic carbon may be sawdust (column 3, lines 43-45 and column 4, lines 28-30).
Regarding claim 24, 27, and 28, Baker teaches the preparation of an activated carbon from lignocellulosic materials (column 3, lines 5-10). The activated carbon is acid and heat treated (column 3, lines 1-10). It is the position of the examiner that the acid treatment/heat treatment would result in the effect claimed. i.e. reduced impurity level compared to untreated activated carbon. Baker teaches that the carbon is highly microporous and has greater than 80% of the total pore volume in micropores (column 4, lines 1-8). Baker teaches that the carbon has a BET surface area of 1700 m2/g (Table 1).
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Baker specifically teaches the reduction in the amount of phosphate to 0.01%, which would result in an amount of phosphorus below 500 ppm (column 7, lines 55-62).
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-15, 17-22, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tolles et al. (US 5,204,310).
Regarding claims 1-4, Tolles et al. (US 5,204,310) teaches an activated lignocellulosic carbon material which has been acid and heat treated (column 3, lines 50-60). It is the position of the examiner that the acid treatment/heat treatment would result in the effect claimed. i.e. reduced impurity level compared to untreated activated carbon. It is noted that Tolles et al. does not disclose the presence of any impurities in the activated carbon produced.
Regarding claim 6, Tolles et al. teaches that the activated carbon material would exhibit a mesopore content of greater than about 50%, preferably greater than 60% of the total pore volume (column 4, lines 10-15).
Regarding claims 7-8, Tolles et al. teaches that the surface area exceeds 1300 m2/g (see tables v-VIII).
Regarding claim 9, Tolles et al. teaches that the carbon material may be activated by treatment with phosphoric acid or zinc chloride (column 4, lines 45-52).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Tolles et al. teaches that the lignocellulose material may be sawdust (column 4, lines 20-35).
Regarding claims 13-15, Tolles et al. teaches an activated lignocellulosic carbon material which has been acid and heat treated (column 3, lines 50-60). It is the position of the examiner that the acid treatment/heat treatment would result in the effect claimed. i.e. reduced impurity level compared to untreated activated carbon. It is noted that Tolles et al. does not disclose the presence of any impurities in the activated carbon produced.
Regarding claims 17-18, Tolles et al. teaches that the surface area exceeds 1300 m2/g (see tables v-VIII).
Regarding claim 19, Tolles et al. teaches that the carbon material may be activated by treatment with phosphoric acid or zinc chloride (column 4, lines 45-52).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Tolles et al. teaches that the lignocellulose material may be sawdust (column 4, lines 20-35).
Regarding claim 22, Tolles et al. teaches that the activated carbon material would exhibit a mesopore content of greater than about 50%, preferably greater than 60% of the total pore volume (column 4, lines 10-15).
Regarding claims 24-27, Tolles et al. teaches an activated lignocellulosic carbon material which has been acid and heat treated (column 3, lines 50-60). It is the position of the examiner that the acid treatment/heat treatment would result in the effect claimed. i.e. reduced impurity level compared to untreated activated carbon. It is noted that Tolles et al. does not disclose the presence of any impurities in the activated carbon produced. Tolles et al. teaches that the surface area exceeds 1300 m2/g (see tables v-VIII). Tolles et al. teaches that the activated carbon material would exhibit a mesopore content of greater than about 50%, preferably greater than 60% of the total pore volume (column 4, lines 10-15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA ANN JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6am - 2pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights